What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Where's the 'treachery'? I'm mocking both of them right out front.

The only thing that could make the next Republican nomination more perfect would be a three-way fight that includes Sharron Angle... leave it to the Republicans/tea baggers/conservatives to choose probably the only politician in the entire State of Nevada who might manage to pull out a loss against Harry Reid.

What is it with you folks and flaky broads?

Stop calling us teabaggers. It is insulting and demeaning. and untrue.

And Angle isn't doing so bad.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...reid-1517.html

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

And so do I.

seems she wanted to be a Krishnah also, now she wants to be a politician

what will she be when she grows up?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

he said "almost"

Yeah, a little inaccurate but his aim is improving.

[hoytedow]

Angle ain't doin' so bad.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...reid-1517.html

[wardd]

she's not doing well with sane people

and of course I believe real clear, beck, orealy, hanity, cheny, bush, and the birthers

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

you also get them email

Really? When? How many? From who? Of late I have googled my info, but mostly to document earlier knowledge.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Ahh...you're rolling out the old "science is just another religion" argument again.

No. It isn't. Religion is faith: a presumed knowledge of what is in reality unknowable, and the substitution of belief for proof.

Science, on the other hand, is independent of faith. It is "...any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome."

Trying to relegate scientific knowledge or procedure to the realm of superstition or religion is an implicit admission that you're unable to rationally refute it...and quite likely unable to even understand it.

Troy, your attempts to discredit me can only bring a smile to my face. I was studying the scientific method and applying scientific methodology to field experiments related to the study of weather not to mention experiments in many other fields well before some here finished primary school if they ever.

I am disappointed that you don't recognize the forces at play in social engineering. What science is, or rather what we today recognize as science is completely irrelevant. That is my point. It does not matter who is correct, who's deduction experiments, data, conclusions are more accurate because the object of the exercise is to give a large number of people a flag to fly and a bone to pick. The method used is very similar to the one used by the many religions we had to endure as humans. This debate can be compared to a debate between say Southern Baptist and Mormons or if you like between Roman Catholics and Seven day Adventist.

Does it matter who is "right"? No! Furthermore considering the little we know of the real causes and the complicated mechanisms at play in our climate, we may as well be debating the existence of God, or the meaning of Revelations, if we can eat pork or if the women can speak in church.

Meantime the real players, enjoy 'popular' support and rub their hand with glee at the thought of large masses control and endless supply of money to fund their ego trips at the top saving the world.

Believe Troy believe and curse the unbeliever!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Angle ain't doin' so bad.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...reid-1517.html

She ain't doin' so good, either. Against any other candidate, Reid would have been guaranteed dead meat. Against Angle, he has at least a decent chance.

You know why? Because she opens her mouth and stuff like this comes out:

"...if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies..." Are people 'really looking toward' their right to keep and bear arms as a remedy for Congress? No. Sane people are looking toward the ballot box.

"We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." No comment necessary.

"You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job... ...we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said you don't want the jobs that are available."The last time I looked at the numbers, there were five job seekers for every job available. And she's twisting reality around to make it their own fault they're out of work.

The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level."
No comment...

"When I said privatize, that's what I meant. That I thought we would just have to go to the private sector for a template on how this is supposed to be done. However, I've since been studying and Chile has done this." Do you know how screwed retirees would be right now, if their Social Security had been invested in the private sector like Bush wanted? And why would we copy anything done by a tinpot dictator in Chile?

"I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls... ...they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." Explaining why she's against abortion, even in cases of incest and rape.

"Government shouldn't be doing that to a private company. And I think you named it clearly: It's a slush fund." A slush fund is money set aside for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda; an unregulated fund often used for illicit purposes. and she thinks money to pay people for the damage done to them by the biggest oil spill in our history is some sort of a bribe?!?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/r...gle-Quotes.htm

And of course, this little gem: "...these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government." I'm sorry; that's just wack.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ommandment.php

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Troy, your attempts to discredit me can only bring a smile to my face. I was studying the scientific method and applying scientific methodology to field experiments related to the study of weather not to mention experiments in many other fields well before some here finished primary school if they ever.

I am disappointed that you don't recognize the forces at play in social engineering. What science is, or rather what we today recognize as science is completely irrelevant. That is my point. It does not matter who is correct, who's deduction experiments, data, conclusions are more accurate because the object of the exercise is to give a large number of people a flag to fly and a bone to pick. The method used is very similar to the one used by the many religions we had to endure as humans. This debate can be compared to a debate between say Southern Baptist and Mormons or if you like between Roman Catholics and Seven day Adventist.

Does it matter who is "right"? No! Furthermore considering the little we know of the real causes and the complicated mechanisms at play in our climate, we may as well be debating the existence of God, or the meaning of Revelations, if we can eat pork or if the women can speak in church.

Meantime the real players, enjoy 'popular' support and rub their hand with glee at the thought of large masses control and endless supply of money to fund their ego trips at the top saving the world.

Believe Troy believe and curse the unbeliever!

Your apparent belief that I'm some sort of mindless sheep because I won't share your paranoid, conspiracy-based viewpoint of the world is getting old.

If I understand you right, you're making two related claims: (1) climatology is an unknowable mystery we're incapable of solving, along the lines of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; and therefore (2) any attempt to study it, understand it and act on what we've learned is a sham; part of a deliberate, worldwide conspiracy to mislead and enslave us.

You're sadly mistaken on both counts, I think.

[Boston]

ya the "they are trying to take our freedoms" argument is pretty lame

I notice it gets another run up the flag pole every time the agnotism isn't working

I just ignore it Troy and stick to correcting the flaws in the various attempts to play the "the science is uncertain" game some posters seem to cling to

anomalous data exists in every data set so no reason to question the entire concept right down to the basic principals on which the science is founded

cheers
B

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

... and stick to correcting the flaws in the various attempts to play the "the science is uncertain" game some posters seem to cling to

anomalous data exists in every data set so no reason to question the entire concept right down to the basic principals on which the science is founded

cheers
B

Boston you are making corrections to the various flaws ... Wow...clearly you must be very close to the source of wisdom, something I can clearly not aspire to...sigh!

Your claims are to be taken as seriously as those that claimed New Yorkers must stop using horse driven carts because the city will be buried in 6 foot of horse manure if the rate of usage continues.
An early days Horse **** modeling without the use of computers.

[Boston]

well then it would be fair to say you dont know much about **** then wouldn't it

although you are right in that I would have been better off mentioning that I was merely pointing out the flaws in the denialist diatribe, correcting a denier is an exorcise in futility as some are even paid shills from the oil and gas industry.

a short history of crap might enlighten you
by 1900 new york city was dealing with 2.5 million pounds of horse **** per day. that coupled with a greater amount of feed meant that were it not for the advent of the car the town might very well have been buried in ****, sorta like this thread.

Now if that issue had been accompanied by a ticking bomb like the one we face today what might have happened had not the car come along.

and what in the near term is going to replace carbon based fuels

sorry but your analogy simply doesn't work
yes the car came along and the cities were not buried in crap but all that really happened was trading one problem for a greater one.
we would have been far better off had we simply limited the size of the city rather than let urban sprawl suck up so much farm land

CO2

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Boston you are making corrections to the various flaws ... Wow...clearly you must be very close to the source of wisdom, something I can clearly not aspire to...sigh!

Your claims are to be taken as seriously as those that claimed New Yorkers must stop using horse driven carts because the city will be buried in 6 foot of horse manure if the rate of usage continues.
An early days Horse **** modeling without the use of computers.

Ummm....don't understand why you're trying to use that as an example of poor modeling. Are you claiming it was wrong? In case you hadn't noticed, the reason the city isn't buried in 6 foot of manure isn't because there was anything wrong with the model; it's because they did stop using horse-drawn carts. Dohhh....

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

well then it would be fair to say you dont know much about **** then wouldn't it

although you are right in that I would have been better off mentioning that I was merely pointing out the flaws in the denialist diatribe, correcting a denier is an exorcise in futility as some are even paid shills from the oil and gas industry.

a short history of crap might enlighten you
by 1900 new york city was dealing with 2.5 million pounds of horse **** per day. that coupled with a greater amount of feed meant that were it not for the advent of the car the town might very well have been buried in ****, sorta like this thread.

Now if that issue had been accompanied by a ticking bomb like the one we face today what might have happened had not the car come along.

and what in the near term is going to replace carbon based fuels

sorry but your analogy simply doesn't work
yes the car came along and the cities were not buried in crap but all that really happened was trading one problem for a greater one.
we would have been far better off had we simply limited the size of the city rather than let urban sprawl suck up so much farm land

CO2

So what would you have done with the people? Ordered them stacked on top of each other in multi-story apartment buildings, instead?

That brings its own set of problems. Like other species, humans need a certain amount of elbow room to maintain their sanity and keep from killing one another.

[Boston]

well ancient Rome dealt with the problem by limiting some types of deliveries to after hours and by making lots of apartment buildings. Basically yes, the lessons of history are pretty clear about it, although sprawl on the scale we have today is pretty much unique the issues surrounding how other cultures through history dealt with city planing are something we could learn from.

the use of a little city planing would go a long way

you might find Calemback's Ecotopia an interesting read although its purely fictional.

there are a lot of solutions once we are willing to let go of the norm and explore the issues from different angles

Calemback's proposal of bringing suburbanites back to the cities, bringing the farm land closer to the populations and moving transportation of bulk goods underground would free up a lot of land that was once valuable farmland. It would also mean less energy spent on transportation. He also proposed abolishing the automobiles in place of covered bike paths and returning much of the road areas to grasslands and parks

there's a lot of solutions out there its just that we first must recognize that there is a problem

which fortunately is happening in spite of the oil and gas industry's campaign to maintain the status quo

cheers
B

PS
with a population of ~7 billion and growing it seems like elbow room is soon to become quite the commodity